As for the Faces components, as long as they're MyFaces components, people will be confused about using them standalone. We can add documentation, but people will still be confused. The only way to eliminate the confusion is to put them in a separate project.
I think the components will thrive independent of MyFaces. The JSF community needs a good open-source component set independent of a particular JSF implementation and I feel like we're hiding one inside MyFaces at the moment.
Finally, I don't think Shale should be part of MyFaces. If Shale is absorbed with MyFaces, we'll have exactly the same problem that we have with the components: people will wonder if they can use Shale with other JSF implementations. A certain percentage will eschew Shale (and the components) because they will assume they're MyFaces specific and never take the time to investigate, or read the documentation.
IMO, MyFaces should strictly adhere to providing a robust JSF implementation. Some extensions that are tied to the framework, such as Tiles support, are fine, but adding things to MyFaces that have nothing to do with MyFaces, per se, invites confusion and limits the adoption of those technologies.
david
Le Mar 16, 2005, à 12:30 PM, Sean Schofield a écrit :
I agree 100% with Martin on this one.
On one of these threads Kito made a comment about people being confused about the myfaces components and whether or not they require myfaces. We should do our best to promote the fact that the components are independent of the implementation. Improvements to our documentation will help with that.
There is a place holder "overview" page on the myfaces site where just such documentation should go. I will add some shortly.
sean
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:18:23 +0100, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I am replying to several postings on the mailing list in the last time at once, so sorry if I puzzle someone.
With all this discussion on toplevel or sublevel or whatever level projects we should still try to get our infrastructure up-to-date first (I agree with Matthias and his former postings on this topic).
In the last one and a half years, we have had (4) different homepages, we should finally try to get the dust cloud to settle down.
For the meantime, I believe that all is quite good as it is right now, even with the components being part of MyFaces.
The thing is that it is much easier to work on the components if they are at least part of the common source base of the framework, and this might be a reason why the components of MyFaces are indeed thriving as much as they do.
As soon as we get to be a large bureaucratic body, we should stop, rethink our ways and move the components out to a subproject.
regards,
Martin
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:16:53 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:46:58 -0500, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Personally, I'm not convinced that Shale really should be part of the
MyFaces project. If you look at JSF as a foundation for UI frameworks (and
more sophisticated web frameworks in general), then hopefully we'll see it
pop up in lots of different places (in my perfect world, even Tapestry
would use JSF components). Placing all projects that use JSF under one
umbrella may break over time as JSF grows. (For example, all Java projects
are no longer part of Jakarta.)
Good point. We definitely don't want to rush into something like this. There are potential drawbacks as you pointed out.
Moreover, although Shale is based on JSF, it will hopefully be the next
major revision of Struts. Struts has its own very strong brand, and it
seems strange to pull Shale away from that.
That is a big question mark but I happen to agree with you (and Craig)
on the desirability of that outcome. Moving Shale to a new project
does pretty much give up on that idea so I can see that as a drawback.
sean
